The segment was hosted by a gushing CBS-TV correspondent Lesley Stahl, who, while enraptured by the T. rex’s preserved soft tissue (including elastic blood vessels, with red blood cells, in its thigh bone) right in front of her, never thought to ask the question (at least on camera): why isn’t such preservation actually highly compelling evidence that dinosaurs have been around in recent times? If dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago, how in the world could the soft tissue have possibly survived and not have dried out 64 million years ago?

60 Minutes is a Peabody-winning investigative news program. Its awards are largely a tribute to the hard-charging efforts of its former executive producer, the late Don Hewitt. Hewitt was known as someone who was a critical thinker and a good “baloney detector.” One might think that had Hewitt still been at the helm of 60 Minutes, he would have insisted that the program dive right into a staring-them-right-in-the-face controversy: that dinosaurs may have lived much more recently than evolutionists have been dogmatically proclaiming for decades. That should have been the real story on 60 Minutes Sunday night, but one that the producers and correspondent ignored. (They could have at least tried to offer an explanation as to how the tissue could have been preserved for so long.)

60 Minutes did allude to one controversy over what was really found in the T. rex’s thigh bone, but it had nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate. Some evolutionists have been trying to cast doubt on the validity of the tissue discovery. For example, they say that perhaps what has been declared as tissue is really mineral spheres (containing iron). As for the material that is “elastic” as the TV program stated (identified by the first researchers as collagen), these same detractors say that it might be “bacterial biofilm” instead, meaning that where the T. rex’s blood vessels once were, bacteria produced biofilm in its place. Ultimately, though, 60 Minutes stated that they looked just like “flexible blood vessels.”

As far as I know, the tissue and blood vessels were not soft when found. In fact, a chemical was added to soften them up. When I last followed the issue, it was still being discussed if it was actually part of the animal or a bacteria film.Now I'm off to google the facts.

What about the two recent finds Kattarina, the inc sacs and the salamander tissue. As far as I can remember, the ink in this case had to be extracted using ammonia.

and of course there's also CBS:

Quote

Ultimately, though, 60 Minutes stated that they looked just like “flexible blood vessels.”

Have they made a cock-up here ?

There was an extended discussion over at Talk Rational -- last year, I think -- concerning some of the issues involved. This thread in particular is well worth reading, esp. some of the comments of "Dlx2 " : http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=4479

Abstract:Using entire modern and ancient mitochondrial genomes of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) that are up to 44000 years old, we show that the rates of evolution of the mitochondrial genome are two to six times greater than those estimated from phylogenetic comparisons. Although the rate of evolution at constrained sites, including nonsynonymous positions and RNAs, varies more than twofold with time (between shallow and deep nodes), the rate of evolution at synonymous sites remains the same. The time-independent neutral evolutionary rates reported here would be useful for the study of recent evolutionary events.

Abstract:Using entire modern and ancient mitochondrial genomes of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) that are up to 44000 years old, we show that the rates of evolution of the mitochondrial genome are two to six times greater than those estimated from phylogenetic comparisons. Although the rate of evolution at constrained sites, including nonsynonymous positions and RNAs, varies more than twofold with time (between shallow and deep nodes), the rate of evolution at synonymous sites remains the same. The time-independent neutral evolutionary rates reported here would be useful for the study of recent evolutionary events.

Cool - I've always been curious about molecular clocks. Different genes mutating at different rates. I wonder what this will cause - other than give Ham and Hovind woodies, that is.

Will Billy D use this to point to a designer as well?

--------------"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Judging from the preview, they would have a pretty decent nature film if they had just left out the dialogue completely. What a wasted trip to travel that far to the Galapagos Islands just to spew the same creationist drivel that they've been re-hashing here at home.

The Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb radioisotopic ratios in these samples of the recent (1949–1975) andesite lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, as anticipated, do not yield any meaningful “age” information, even with selective manipulation of the data. Instead, these data provide evidence of the mantle source of the lavas, of magma genesis, and of crustal contamination of the parental basalt magmas. Subduction of the Pacific Plate beneath the Taupo Volcanic Arc has carried trench sediments with it—sediments identical in composition to the Torlesse metasediment basement underlying, and outcropping adjacent to, these volcanoes. Scraped off the subducting slab, the sediments have contaminated the basalt magmas generated by partial melting of the peridotitic mantle wedge at the mantle-slab interface. The resultant andesite magmas rose in the melt column through the mantle wedge, and then ascended through fracture conduits in the overlying crust into magma chambers below the volcanoes that erupted when full.

The Sr-Nd-Pb radioisotopic systematics are thus characteristic of the depleted mantle source, modified by mixing with the crustal contaminant. Variations in the depleted mantle Nd “model ages”, which range from 724.5 to 1453.3 Ma, and which are meaningless in this recent (even in conventional terms) tectonic and petrogenetic framework, and the Pb isotopic linear arrays, indicate geochemical heterogeneity in the mantle wedge. Thus the radioisotopic ratios in these recent Ngauruhoe andesite lava flows were inherited from both the peridotitic mantle wedge and the subducted trench sediments, and are fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore only reflect the origin and history of the mantle and crustal sources from which the magma was generated, and therefore have no age significance.

By implication, the radioisotopic ratios in ancient lavas found throughout the geologic record are likely fundamental characteristics of their geochemistry. They therefore probably only reflect the magmatic origin of the lavas from mantle and crustal sources, and any history of mixing or contamination in their petrogenesis, rather than any valid age information. Even though radioisotopic decay has undoubtedly occurred during the earth’s history, conventional radioisotopic dating of these rocks therefore does not necessarily provide valid absolute “ages” for them. This is especially so if accelerated nuclear decay accompanied the catastrophic operation of those geologic and tectonic processes responsible for the mixing of the radioisotopic decay products during magma genesis.

A job for someone then, especially as it's puporting to be peer reviewed science.

With AiG being a creationism propaganda organization, obviously aimed at a general audience consisting of primarily fundamentalist creationists, with the purpose of supporting the belief in six-day creation and a literal reading of Genesis, I don’t see how stuff like that is relevant – except to impress the crowd with sciency stuff.

I think I am reasonably well informed and knowledgeable person, but from reading the Snelling piece I can only conclude that in order to determine if I think he’s got a valid argument, I’d have to do quite a thorough study of geology and nuclear physics.

As far as I am concerned I don’t for a second think that his argument is of much relevance for the question of the age of the Earth or the planet’s geological and biological history.

The problem is that creationists don’t believe science beyond facts like gravity, and don’t want to learn science. They believe creationism and ‘study’ creationism.

The thing is that before any of the dating methods and before Darwin people could figure out that the world was far older than 6000 years.

We go camping at the Wombeyan caves. These caves with stalagmites and Stalactites formed from marble. I'd like any creationist show me how you can form a deep coral reef. bury it, cook it by a nearby volcanoe. Massive caves slowly eroded by water and the limestone features metres high being created.

This is a process that takes millions of years, any quicker and it wouldn't work.

As far as I am concerned I don’t for a second think that his argument is of much relevance for the question of the age of the Earth or the planet’s geological and biological history.

Try telling that to a YEC though Quack. Uneducated YECs will read this and thoroughly digest it as real scientific research that proves the Earth isn't at least 3.8 billion years old (the oldest terrestrial rock dates) and that serious flaws exist with radiomatric dating techniques. Someone in geology circles needs to have a look at this so called research and inform us lesser educated individuals what Snelling's claims actually are, how and why he has deduced a 6,000 year old Earth from them, and why his "research" is flawed.

It's a pity talkorigins isn't updating anymore and that the site has been left to fester somewhat. A shame.

Ngauruhoe lava is chock-full of xenoliths; it's a mixture of old and new material. Any dating of Ngauruhoe lava is invalid unless the method for separating the xenoliths is specified. I quote Snelling:

Quote

All samples were sent first for sectioning—one thin section from each sample. These were subsequently all carefully examined under a petrographic microscope and their mineralogy and textures recorded. A set of representative pieces from each sample (approximately 100 g) was then dispatched to the AMDEL Laboratory in Adelaide, South Australia, for whole-rock major, trace and rare earth element analyses. A representative set (50–100 g from each sample) was also sent to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating.81 A third representative set (50–100 g from ten of the samples—two samples from each flow) was sent to the PRISE Laboratory in the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia, for Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb isotopic determinations.

At the AMDEL Laboratory each sample was crushed and pulverized. Whole-rock analyses were undertaken by total fusion of each powdered sample and then digesting them before ICP-OES (inductively coupled plasma—optical emission spectrometry) for major and minor elements, and ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma—mass spectrometry) for trace and rare earth elements. Fe was analyzed for amongst the major elements by ICP-OES as Fe2O3 and reported accordingly. Additionally, separate analyses for Fe as FeO were undertaken via wet chemistry methods, which were also used to measure the loss on ignition (primarily H2O content). The detection limit for all major element oxides was 0.01%. For minor and trace elements the detection limits varied between 0.5 and 20 ppm, and for rare earth elements between 0.5 and 1 ppm.

The Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb isotopic analyses were undertaken at the PRISE Laboratory under the direction of Dr. Richard Armstrong. No specific sample location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory, although samples were described as young andesites so that the laboratory staff would optimize the sample preparation procedure in order to obtain the best analytical results. At the laboratory the sample pieces were crushed and pulverized, and then dissolved in concentrated hydrofluoric acid, followed by the standard chemical separation procedures for each of these isotopic systems. Once separated, the elements in each isotopic system were loaded by standard procedures onto metal filaments to be used in the solid source thermal ionization mass spectrometer (TIMS), the state-of-the-art technology in use in this laboratory. Sr isotopes were measured using the mass fractionation correction 86Sr/88Sr = 0.1194. The 87Sr/86Sr ratios reported were normalized to the NBS standard SRM 987 value of 0.710207. Nd isotopes were corrected for mass fractionation using 146Nd/144Nd = 0.7219, and were normalized to the present-day 143Nd/144Nd value of 0.51268 for BCR-1. Pb isotope ratios were normalized to NBS standard SRM 981 for mass fractionation.

...

Steiner111 stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lavas, but also noted that Battey112 reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material.

{emphasis added}

"Whole-rock" means what it says; the entire sample is crushed and analyzed without any attempt to separate any constituents. Nobody separated the xenoliths.

It's pure garbage, and even recycled garbage.

{ABE: Geochron hasn't done K-Ar analyses for several years. It's declined in popularity, and their main K-Ar guy quit, so they just shut sown the division}.

Yeah, that's the picture I got from the screed, too, JonF, and I have only 1st year geology for arts geeks. The entire field is contaminated with rocks of differing ages, making isotope-dating pretty much impossible.

Even if they can prove the contamination by xenoliths in every single igneous rock bed ever isotope-dated, everywhere in the world, all that proves is contamination, and the need to separate out xenoliths before dating methods are applied (if that's even possible).

Still not support for any young earth claims.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Finally, the long-awaited update to the Morris/Whitcomb classic, The Genesis Flood! This huge 2-volume set is filled with up-to-date geological evidence that demonstrates the authority and accuracy of the Bible’s account of creation and the Flood. Step by step, respected Australian geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling examines evolutionary interpretations of the geologic record and deconstructs the misplaced assumptions and conclusions on which those interpretations are based. With in-depth scholarly research and insight, he then constructs a biblical geologic model for earth history and concludes that the claims of Genesis 1–11 are true. Topics covered include:

The biblical record of the Flood Arguments used against the global Genesis Flood Noah, the Ark, and the animals The framework for a scriptural geology A biblical geologic model of earth history Includes 126 chapters, selected bibliography, index and numerous color figures/illustrations

Does it say anything about Antarctic ice sheets, Greenland glaciers, etc.? Does it explain how a bird sent from the ark came back with a fresh leaf from a tree, after the flood killed all the trees?

Not to mention the people in Egypt and China who left records through that period without noticing that they drowned.

There's also the marsupials in Australia that weren't and aren't closely related to any particular order of placental mammals. If the current marsupials weren't contiguous with the fossil record of marsupials, seems like somebody would have documented it already.

Finally, the long-awaited update to the Morris/Whitcomb classic, The Genesis Flood!

HAHA, wow, that shit had me rollin'.

The "finally" always gets me, though; it's like even the creotards themselves know that they're god-awful with deadlines. I suppose the old xian adage about how, to Yahweh, a couple seconds is an eon and an eon is a couple second is yet another projection from the fundies onto their imaginary friend.

--------------If you are not:Leviathanplease Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

The biblical record of the Flood Arguments used against the global Genesis Flood Noah, the Ark, and the animals The framework for a scriptural geology A biblical geologic model of earth history Includes 126 chapters, selected bibliography, index and numerous color figures/illustrations

.

Is anyone up for a review ? Obviously lots of new claims.

I doubt they have anything new. I never buy a new book by any creationist. I wait for a used book (if any). I refuse to ever give even a tiny royalty to a lying creato shit-sucker. (Note that occasional creato books are actually dumped, and are sold at ~50% of retail- these are actually remaindered, and I count them as "used").

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

For more than twenty years it has been known that the Rb-Sr and K-Ar systems give discordant “ages” for Cardenas Basalt and associated Proterozoic diabase sills and dikes of Grand Canyon. Thirteen new K-Ar analyses of Proterozoic mafic rocks of Grand Canyon are added to nine published K-Ar analyses. We report a new fourteen-point K-Ar isochron “age” of 516 ± 30 Ma which is strongly discordant with the published Rb-Sr isochron “age” of 1.07 ± 0.07 Ga for Cardenas Basalt. By more than doubling the K-Ar data set we can test explanations for why the discordance exists. Advocates of the Rb-Sr isochron, recognizing the strong geochemical similarity of rubidium and potassium, have not argued for significant potassium addition to these rocks. Addition of potassium during alteration of these rocks would explain the anomously young K-Ar age, but it would also add rubidium and invalidate the Rb-Sr isochron age. Instead, advocates of the Rb-Sr isochron have argued only for significant argon loss. Two argon loss models (episodic loss and continuous loss) are tested in an attempt to explain why these altered rocks have about half the 40Ar required by the conventional Rb-Sr interpretation. Both argon loss models, although attempting to maintain the assumptions of conventional geochronology, fail to explain the data, especially the new data we offer. Three models are proposed as alternatives to argon loss models, but these invalidate using the K-Ar system as conventional geochronology would assume.

"Now that we've found a factor-of-two discrepancy, then 5 orders of magnitude (500My to 5Ky) is a slam dunk, and Genesis is Truth!"

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Lone voices special: God said, let the dry land appear 09 December 2006 by Peter Aldhous Magazine issue 2581. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. Read full articleContinue reading page |1 |2 Few earth scientists believe that our planet was created some 10,000 years ago and maintain that the Biblical account of Noah's flood is the literal truth. To have published papers in Nature and Science while holding these views is almost unheard of. John Baumgardner, creationist and geophysical modeller, tells Peter Aldhous how his Christian faith has shaped an unusual scientific career.

You've said that your primary goal as a scientist is "defence of God's word". Is this consistent with the scientific method?

Most scientists try to make incremental contributions. There are a few who are strongly driven by their world view; Richard Dawkins is a pretty dramatic example. I would put myself in that same category, although I hope that I'm not as abrasive. If people can do it on the other side, why should I shrink back?

What led you to geophysical modelling?

My original training was in electrical engineering. Later, I had a Christian conversion. After four years working on laser optics in the air force I had three years with Campus Crusade for Christ. During that time I started doing lectures on the origins of the Earth as described in the Bible, and found myself doing a lot of background research. In 1978 I realised that the Genesis flood had to involve rapid large-scale tectonic change. So I started a PhD in geophysics at the University of California, Los Angeles.

During your PhD you developed a computer model for the interior of the Earth that has been widely used. Tell us about that.

It models convection in the Earth's mantle, treating it as a viscous fluid and partitioning it into a large number of cells. We model the flow of rock as the result of solid-state creep: the rock is solid, but it deforms and flows like a fluid. The Los Alamos National Laboratory, where I had developed the model, was impressed, and in 1983 made me an offer to work in its theoretical division.

How does this work relate to the Genesis flood?

My main interest is in modelling catastrophic plate tectonics. Laboratory experiments show that silicate minerals can weaken by a factor of a billion under relatively modest stress change. As a slab of rock descends into the mantle, there's deformation in the zone between the slab and the surrounding mantle. As the stress increases, the material becomes weaker, allowing the slab to fall more rapidly. This increases the stress, so you have positive feedback. This allows plate motions that are generally understood to require hundreds of millions of years to unfold to occur in a few weeks. It results in significant deformation in the height of the continents' surfaces, and the height of the ocean's bottom. Apparently, the continents were largely submerged. In roughly a year's time, we have almost a complete resurfacing of the planet. At the end, we have a wrecked, desolate planet that is struggling to recover.

You have conceded one major problem, which is how the newly formed crust could cool so quickly.

That is a problem. There would have been supersonic jets of steam, which I once thought might have carried heat into space. But I'm persuaded now that you can't cool the plates by that mechanism. Still, I believe that this accounts for the 40 days and 40 nights of rain: ocean water was carried up with these jets. Most of what I've described involves the present laws of physics, but there are a couple of issues where I believe there must have been some form of divine intervention. One has to do with accelerating nuclear decay rates, which can explain why radioisotope methods seem to give dates for some rocks of hundreds of millions of years. The second is a mechanism for cooling.

For most scientists, this is hugely problematical. They cannot invoke divine intervention in this way.

I don't deny that most people would come down on the side of the conventional view, right now. Until the case is strong enough, it's foolhardy of me to ask and insist that my peers buy into it. I personally have confidence that it's true. My close peers, at least, know my position and are interested in it. But most of them want to continue to be in good standing with their colleagues.

You don't seem to worry much about peer approval.

I was in college during the radical sixties. Even though I did not participate in protests, I think I came away with that kind of radical outlook. The Biblical Christian also sees himself as a kind of revolutionary. True Christians generally haven't enjoyed a lot of approval

Debate Summit 2010 will be held March 12th – 13th and includes nationally and internationally recognized scholars. The Debate Summit series exists as a forum designed to explain, test and defend various aspects of the Christian worldview by interacting with qualified representatives of non-Christian worldviews in moderated public debates. Its goal is to create and maintain an atmosphere of civility, mutual respect and the open exchange of ideas.

The Debate Summit is hosted by Grace Community Church of Washington Court House, Ohio.

Debaters for this year include Dr. Will Provine of Cornell University. Dr. Provine is one of the world’s preeminent spokesmen for evolution. On a popular level, he is perhaps best known for his interview in Ben Stein’s documentary, “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed”. …

Dr. Provine’s … first opponent is Dr. Andy McIntosh of Leeds University (United Kingdom). Dr. McIntosh lectures internationally and is an expert in thermodynamics, combustion theory and aerodynamics. The Provine/McIntosh debate topic is “Flight in birds and bats: Is evolution or creation the best guide?”. Dr. Provine’s second debate is with Dr. Dennis Sullivan of Cedarville University (OH). Dr. Sullivan, a former surgeon, is Professor of Biology at Cedarville and is the Director at the University’s Center of Bioethics. The Provine/Sullivan debate will be “Free Will: Does it exist? Does it matter?”

[In the third debate] Dr. Ed Buckner [President of American Atheists] will debate Jay Lucas, the Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church. … . The Buckner/Lucas debate will be “Moral Foundations: Which makes more sense, Christianity or Atheism?”.

We might call it a 'historical' science, but this would be resisted because in our day and age calling something a 'historical' fact is like saying it isn't true at all but when people say something is a scientific fact, it is unassailable... except by the scientists themselves who reserve to themselves the right to change their interpretation on the fly as it suits them.

My translation:

Quote

Wah! The scientists won't let us YECs change the facts or even their interpretation of the facts, the big meanies. Wah!

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

This is a large dose of serendipity: I have just been having a little bit of back and forth with Mr. Horvath on the Amazon.com "Religion" forum, toward the end of "Why Christianity and Nazi Germany were NOT mutually exclusive!" He has just published a book by Joseph Keysor, "Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible: A Scriptural Analysis of Anti-Semitism, National Socialism, and the Churches in Nazi Germany."

It seems that the Holocaust was caused by Darwin. Sounds like a cheap knock-off of Richard Weikart's "From Darwin to Hitler."

Keysor, like Horvath is a far-right YEC. Keysor's primary degree is in Eastern European Studies from a small religious college, and an MA in "adult education." He teaches English.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect (sic) world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative.

The resolution invokes these fallacious claims in the service of four points: “That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact”; “That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect [sic] world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity [sic] of these factors is largely speculative”; “That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena”; and that instruction about global warming should be “appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances

They're not doing badly. In two months they've had 11,000 visitors and 43 clergy signatures. :p

Late to the game on this, but I just saw FL's comment on the subject.

Seems to me that since the Creationist Letter Project is allowing just any ol' Tom, Dick, or Apologist sign on, perhaps there should be a simple Evolutionary Theory Letter Project on which anyone who affirms an understanding of evolutionary theory and process and can sign. It would be interesting to see just how many people would.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Yea! For it has been told to us, so we believe in:6 day creationLeprechaunsSanta ClausCreation Believers are not nutzThe Home Office is here to helpSarah Palin is also not nutzGlenn Beck is a Mormon, not a True Christian and so is condemned to eternal hellfireThese Oh Lord are the Truths we live byAmen.

I also believe that it's possible Pastor Hugh Jass might stop by.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

They're not doing badly. In two months they've had 11,000 visitors and 43 clergy signatures. :p

Late to the game on this, but I just saw FL's comment on the subject.

Seems to me that since the Creationist Letter Project is allowing just any ol' Tom, Dick, or Apologist sign on, perhaps there should be a simple Evolutionary Theory Letter Project on which anyone who affirms an understanding of evolutionary theory and process and can sign. It would be interesting to see just how many people would.

They're not doing badly. In two months they've had 11,000 visitors and 43 clergy signatures. :p

Late to the game on this, but I just saw FL's comment on the subject.

Seems to me that since the Creationist Letter Project is allowing just any ol' Tom, Dick, or Apologist sign on, perhaps there should be a simple Evolutionary Theory Letter Project on which anyone who affirms an understanding of evolutionary theory and process and can sign. It would be interesting to see just how many people would.

There is a facebook page trying to get 1000000 members by June

Excellent! I will take a looksy for that.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

oh and there's two weeks of field trips for USA folks on the Cumberland Plateau:

Quote

OCTOBER 2010 Two weeks of field trips for USA folks on the Cumberland Plateau click HERE for details.

They do now. I just emailed Gary Bradford, the evolutionary biology advisor at UBC.

Ta for the heads up.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"But surely," you might argue, "science and religion must be compatible. After all, some scientists are religious." One is Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. But the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn't prove that the two areas are compatible. It shows only that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time. If that meant compatibility, we could make a good case, based on the commonness of marital infidelity, that monogamy and adultery are perfectly compatible. No, the incompatibility between science and faith is more fundamental: Their ways of understanding the universe are irreconcilable

Now where does that leave the clergy letter project ? Dead in the water, in my opinion.

Seems to me that Coyne and Sarfatti agree on at least one thing.

People like Coyne are the reason why so many Christians are persuaded more by AiG than real science, depite YECism's absurdity

Golly, Peter, I think it was pretty clear in what I wrote that Sarfati and various folks who disagree with him on the status of creationism nonetheless agree that a dichotomy exists. I also stated that others don't sign onto the dichotomy. So citing people's opinion in the first group (literalist creationists and "new atheists") to declare the second group's opinion "dead in the water" just doesn't make much sense to me. What you are saying is that people who believe that there is a dichotomy continue to believe that there is a dichotomy... not particularly informative, in my book.

I largely agree with the clergy letter project Wesley, don't get me wrong and I agree with your comments.

However, every time Coyne (who I regard as far more extreme than Dawkins) makes one of these tatements he does the project no good and I become really quite dismayed.

It gives the YECs like Sarfatti ammunition, in my opinion. "See, we told you so, even Atheists can recognise there's a problem with evolution and Christianity". It also drives Christians who are wavering on the issue into the hands of the likes of Ken Ham.

Coyne's really saying that Christian's have to make a choice. Unfortunately, many will make that choice and become YECs, rather than give up their faith for the sake of science.

Last time Richard Dawkins was a guest on talkback (BBC Radio Ulster), he pointed listeners who accepted evolution and who were Christians in the direction of Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller.

If you haven't already read it, you will find that John Pieret on his blog Thoughts in a Haystack is quite scathing about Coyne's forays into philosophy and theology.

As for Duanne D Miller, I see nothing surprising there. He is just further evidence, if any were needed, for the hypothesis that an advanced scientific education and credentials do not necessarily confer an immunity to religious belief of some sort. The only small caveat is whether his field of expertise qualifies him a competent or appropriate authority on evolutionary biology.

In my view, there is no direct clash between a monolithic Science and a monolithic Religion. That is a vast oversimplification.

There are cases where specific claims about the natural world by a particular faith are contradicted by science, such as the Christian creationist claim that the world is only 6,000 years old. Does that somehow invalidate Christianity as a whole? Turn it around. Supposing research were to find that societies that lived by the Golden Rule were, on balance, healthier and happier than those that followed a more selfish morality such as Greed is Good. Would that tend to confirm Christianity?

As for the question of origins, claims by celebrity scientists notwithstanding, the simple answer is no one - no one - knows. Which means that atheists are no more entitled to sneer at the beliefs of a Kenneth Miller than are conservative believers to regard atheists or agnostics as more despicable than pedophiles.

Humility is supposed to be a virtue in both science and religion - albeit more often honored in the breach than the observance, as they say - and I would suggest it its the best way to approach both our differences and our ignorance.

Supposing research were to find that societies that lived by the Golden Rule were, on balance, healthier and happier than those that followed a more selfish morality such as Greed is Good. Would that tend to confirm Christianity?

Never mind Christianity; what would that result say about the Ferengi culture?

Supposing research were to find that societies that lived by the Golden Rule were, on balance, healthier and happier than those that followed a more selfish morality such as Greed is Good. Would that tend to confirm Christianity?

Never mind Christianity; what would that result say about the Ferengi culture? :p

Supposing research were to find that societies that lived by the Golden Rule were, on balance, healthier and happier than those that followed a more selfish morality such as Greed is Good. Would that tend to confirm Christianity?

Never mind Christianity; what would that result say about the Ferengi culture? :p

What, indeed? I'm all ears.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Supposing research were to find that societies that lived by the Golden Rule were, on balance, healthier and happier than those that followed a more selfish morality such as Greed is Good. Would that tend to confirm Christianity?

Never mind Christianity; what would that result say about the Ferengi culture? :p

What, indeed? I'm all ears.

Let's not trek off on another pun-run, as we klingon to the most tenuous similarities. We should be more enterprising, end this phaser of our commentary (stunning as it is) and warp the dialogue into something more enterprising.

--------------"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Supposing research were to find that societies that lived by the Golden Rule were, on balance, healthier and happier than those that followed a more selfish morality such as Greed is Good. Would that tend to confirm Christianity?

Never mind Christianity; what would that result say about the Ferengi culture? :p

What, indeed? I'm all ears.

Let's not trek off on another pun-run, as we klingon to the most tenuous similarities. We should be more enterprising, end this phaser of our commentary (stunning as it is) and warp the dialogue into something more enterprising.

No bones about it: make it so.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Supposing research were to find that societies that lived by the Golden Rule were, on balance, healthier and happier than those that followed a more selfish morality such as Greed is Good. Would that tend to confirm Christianity?

Never mind Christianity; what would that result say about the Ferengi culture? :p

What, indeed? I'm all ears.

Let's not trek off on another pun-run, as we klingon to the most tenuous similarities. We should be more enterprising, end this phaser of our commentary (stunning as it is) and warp the dialogue into something more enterprising.

No bones about it: make it so.

Dammit, Janet, I'm only a doctor, Jim.

Opps, I slipped into a timewarp again.

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 14 2010,18:57

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Frankfort, Ky. (Dec. 1, 2010)—Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear today joined the Ark Encounter LLC to announce the planned construction of a full-scale Noah’s Ark tourist attraction in northern Kentucky. Partnering with the Ark Encounter is Answers in Genesis, which is most widely known for its high-tech and popular Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

“We are excited to join with the Ark Encounter group as it seeks to provide this unique, family friendly tourist attraction to the Commonwealth,” said Gov. Beshear. “Bringing new jobs to Kentucky is my top priority, and with the estimated 900 jobs this project will create, I am happy about the economic impact this project will have on the Northern Kentucky region.”

The Ark Encounter is scheduled to open in spring 2014 in northern Kentucky. Multiple sites are being considered, although property in Grant County off I-75 is at the top of the list. A feasibility study conducted by the renowned America’s Research Group has indicated that the Ark Encounter may attract 1.6 million visitors in the first year and is expected to employ up to 900 full- and part-time staff.

FRANKFORT, Ky., Dec. 2, 2010—Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear and the Ark Encounter, LLC announced Wednesday plans for a major new tourist attraction in the Northern Kentucky region: a full-scale Noah’s Ark. Partnering with the Ark Encounter is Answers in Genesis, which is most widely known for its high-tech and well-attended Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky.

At a packed press conference, Gov. Beshear emphasized his commitment to bring jobs to Kentucky as a result of strengthening the language in the Tourism Development Act. “Make no mistake about it, this is a huge deal to Grant County, to northern Kentucky and to the entire Commonwealth. As I indicated earlier, we strengthened the Tourism Act to help us create jobs and attract visitors, which this project clearly does,” he said.

Gov. Beshear also announced that the Ark Encounter had submitted all of the necessary applications to take advantage of the sales tax reimbursements offered for tourist attractions. He said this incentive in the Tourism Act is what drew the Ark Encounter LLC to Kentucky. “We are eager to work with Ark Encounter officials to make this exciting project happen, and we look forward to its completion,” he concluded. The Ark Encounter is scheduled to open in spring 2014, on about 800 acres off I-75 in Grant County, Ky., south of Cincinnati, Ohio. The land is under contract and the sale is expected to be finalized soon.

The for-profit Ark Encounter project will be privately funded, with an estimated cost of $149.5 million. Noah’s Ark itself will be built at a cost of $24.5 million, which will come from donations through Answers in Genesis and its “Ark Pegs, Planks & Beams” program. The additional $125 million for the rest of the complex will be contributed by the for-profit LLC.

Is Gov. Bashear a member of the Tea party or are they all nutty women ? Who on earth are the "for profit LLC". Is it some sort of government tourist quango ?

1) Who is going to sue first for a First Amendment violation (you'd think a 300 cubit ark was a pretty obvious endorsement of one religion)?

I don't think this is going on public land and as the announcement notes it's being privately funded. I don't see where the first amendment violation would stand. That the governor is endorsing this is an interesting fine-line issue, it seems he's been careful about noting he's promoting it because of the employment impact. I doubt this will be an issue.

Quote

2) If no one sues, then when will the first Muslim theme park open? Complete with rental burkahs and those that don't bow when the bell rings get blown up.*

* Yes, I'm being objectionable and stereotypical of the muslim religion. deal with it.

When some well-funded conservative Muslim group decides that such a venture will further its goals. Until then, it won't happen.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

1) Who is going to sue first for a First Amendment violation (you'd think a 300 cubit ark was a pretty obvious endorsement of one religion)?

AIUI the tax break is because it will bring tourists and jobs to the area. In itself those are religiously neutral. The problems might come when they start hiring and ask prospective employees to sign one of their fundie "Statement of Faith" things. At that point non-fundies can start suing.

IIRC the Creation Museum has something like that for its staff so I imagine that Ham will go down the same route with the Ark experience.

I pointed out that several people, right off the get-go defined vestigial organs as not necessarily meaning having "NO" function. His response? He basically kept repeating the accusation. I told him he was acting like he was ignoring the answer. We got back and forth; he mentioned the "guttersite" Talk Origins, probably because he saw me reading from a paper the references (you can see some in my comment here that I was making.

I asked him where he got off on calling them "guttersnipes" or something like that; he said that he called them a "guttersite". I said that was worse.

He said that Talk Origins was an "antichristian" site, I told him that it wasn't true: Christians like Glen Morton post there. He insulted him, belittled their "christianity" or something like that..

Anyway, he kept to saying that scientists have been trying to change the definition of "vestigial" because uses kept getting found for them while I had said that they were consistent all along, the dictionary buggered up or something.

My second question:

After listening him do the "Expelled" routine of blaming all sorts of anti-semitic crap on Darwin and showing some Nazi footage (that he said was in the "Expelled" movie), I asked him if he knew that Martin Luther (the guy he praised earlier) wrote On the Jews and Their Lies.

He said he did, but that he had virtually nothing to do with the nazis: Luther was only anti-semitic as the end of his life when they refused his arguments.

I asked him: What did Darwin ever say about the Jews? He went on about how it was "darwinist" scientists or something who went for that; you'll notice that he didn't actually answer that question. I (think) I pointed out that it was Luther that Hitler admired, etc.

I said that there's a lot of stuff here; and mentioned a Christian site: Ray Comfort's Atheist Central site and if he'd heard of him. He said he hadn't, I said that maybe it was because Comfort was from New Zealand, some in the audience liked that.

Anyway, I mentioned this post where Comfort reviewed the "Expelled" movie, and that it said all the things Sarfati said. I said: Read down the comments and you'll see the commentators refuted that (or something like that)...fortunately I got cut off before I could mention that my name is where one would find all that.

If anyone there actually remembers and gives a shit, they can go to that site and just read through and see for themselves what I wanted them to see anyway. I really didn't want those berks to know my name anyhow!

We got into another argument and the church people finally got pissed off enough (I should consider myself lucky they let me go on this long, really) muttering "Next, next".

It had no effect on me other than to make me duck my head and say something that I'm damned glad the mike didn't pick up, but Sarfati and the "light" guy did eventually end it and go on to the next questioner.

**This is how stupid I am...I rembered, way afterwards, the perfect question to have asked him during that argument. Sod it! What would it have been?

Pointing out what Sarfati once called a fellow Jew:secular misochristic Jew

With all his talk of "darwinists" leading to nazism, it'd have been great to throw that ancient, xian anti-jewish curse back at him. Sigh...damnit.

Unlike a previous guy who took off after some @@@hole in the audience went nuts on him (Sarfati actually had to hold that guy back), I figured: I'm staying till the end. The last thing I want is for these clowns to clap while I'm leaving or something. So, I sat until the end.

I had a nice talk with a sympathetic guy afterwards. I told him -more detail about what I had posted on Comfort's site and which name to look for it

-how the various posters on Comfort's site keep pasting him, especially some guy named Steven J. The example I gave was the evolution of genders "problem", etc.

-how some xians like Roger C. Weins (yes, I spelled the guy's name wrong when I spelled it out to this fellow) has an article called Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective that he could Google to see how Sarfati's talk of radiometric dating gets dealt with

-how if actual historians and scientists were in the crowd that the questions would have been a lot more hostile to Sarfati, etc.

He did say that Sarfati had a sympathetic audience at the church.

He, his wife, and some other guy hung around us while we talked. Kind of sad though: Only me and him talked and we never introduced ourselves to each other or to the other people, really.

Oh well: Those other people didn't speak up themselves, they just listened.

So, other than those two problems I mentioned, how could I have handled that better?

I remember that I tried to mention Dagobert Runes, the guy who wrote "On the Jew and the Cross" as well as some other books detailing the historical anti-semitism of Sarfati's adopted religion. I mentioned the guy's name and that his mother was in a concentration camp and I was going to mention the book titles, but Sarfi cut me off, saying that some guy who he (or the "Expelled" people used as a source?) was himself supposed to be a camp survivor.

He was quite brusque at that point...I wonder if he knew what I was about to say. Pisses me off that I let him cut me off like that.

Join us at Lifeway Ridgecrest Conference Center for 5 fantastic days of learning, leisure, fellowship, fun and worship, with a top line-up of creation speakers from the US and around the world.

This family conference presents some of the world's leading creationist thinkers in the areas of creation apologetics, biology, geology, and cosmology. A full children’s program will also be provided teaching young ones how to think about the issues.

There will be something for everyone! Supervised activities onsite, free music concerts, powerlifting performances, geology excursions, Q&A panels and more!

those assholes are going to Chimney Rock, at the mouth of the Rocky Broad River Gorge, to talk about young earth stupidism.

there are very few places on earth where there is such a vast array of evidence for not only the deep age of the Appalachian mountains but also the deep evolutionary history of the plants and animals that populate those mountains.

for fuck's sake there are endemic plethodontid salamanders, plants and fishes in that watershed, which has been eroding headward into the Blue Ridge Escarpment over 80,000 times as long as these assholes pretend to believe that the earth has existed.

SOOOOO

my bet is that no amount of creationist dipshittery can persuade an honest observer that they are looking at anything other than the gaping maw of history when they visit this place. there may not be many honest observers there, but I know i walked away from that bullshit because of (in part) the inanities I heard repeated at this conference center in the first place. So don't think of it as a YEC Conference, think of it as an Anti-theist Generator

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Students are being brainwashed with evolutionary ideas in almost all public schools and museums, and they are expected to accept it uncritically. We’ve made this point many times over the years, but a recent news story has made the brainwashing even more obvious.1 In 2008, Louisiana passed a bill that would allow teachers in the public school system to “use supplemental materials . . . to help students critique and review scientific theories.” Such critical thinking skills should be a part of an education process and are part of many state education standards.

Well, a 19-year-old student at Rice University, Zack Kopplin, is on a mission to repeal that law. He is being praised by the secular world for his ambition, as evidenced in a recent article about him.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I think maybe a little editing is in order for the non-AiG crowd to get into this: "Flat Earth Ken".

A myriad possibilities await ...

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.